Narrative Opinion Summary
Mukesh Chand, Sangeeta Chand, and Melvin Chand, citizens of Fiji, filed consolidated petitions for review against the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA), which denied their motions to reopen their cases due to claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The jurisdiction for this review is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252. The court reviews denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and constitutional questions, including ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo. The court upheld the BIA’s ruling, concluding that the petitioners did not demonstrate that the alleged ineffective assistance from their former attorneys resulted in prejudice, which is necessary to support their claims. Consequently, the petitions for review were denied. This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Legal Issues Addressed
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel and Prejudice Requirementsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court determined that the petitioners failed to demonstrate prejudice resulting from ineffective assistance of counsel, which is necessary to support their claims for reopening the cases.
Reasoning: The court upheld the BIA’s ruling, concluding that the petitioners did not demonstrate that the alleged ineffective assistance from their former attorneys resulted in prejudice, which is necessary to support their claims.
Jurisdiction Under 8 U.S.C. § 1252subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court established its jurisdiction to review the Board of Immigration Appeals' denial of motions to reopen based on claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.
Reasoning: The jurisdiction for this review is established under 8 U.S.C. § 1252.
Non-Precedential Nature of Decisionsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: This decision is designated as non-precedential and cannot be cited as precedent in future cases, except as specified in court rules.
Reasoning: This decision is not intended for publication and does not serve as precedent except as specified in 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
Standard of Review for Denials of Motions to Reopensubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court applied the abuse of discretion standard to review the BIA's denial and addressed constitutional questions, including claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo.
Reasoning: The court reviews denials of motions to reopen for abuse of discretion and constitutional questions, including ineffective assistance of counsel, de novo.